Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
CSPAN2 4
CNN 3
CNNW 3
CSPAN 3
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
CNBC 1
FBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 24
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
have a foreign policy that is coming apart. >>gregg: you were in the carter administration. all hands on deck the. >> the president himself, for ten, 15, 20 hours a day, in the middle of the greatest moments of this, involved himself personally. we were trying to get them out the day they flew home we were there all night and the next morning up until the time of the inauguration and the president was hands on. the notion this president was disengaged and talked to no one after the 15 minute meeting and went off the next day to a fundraiser? now we understand and this is causing the republicans today to start saying, patrol and -- start saying, graham and others, they will hold up the nomination. >>gregg: does it appear lights were out at the white house while an american diplomat was underattack and other americans? >> that is right. to me, the bottom line question that pat raises and you raised, too, do we have a coherent foreign policy and national security policy not only through iran and north korea but through the role of the united states in rooting out terrorism in north afric
foreign policy and military policy on the basis of drones. lou: let's take a look at the drawn strikes that accelerated markedly, dramatically under president obama from the bush years. freaky put that up to show how it is grown. 352 drone strikes in pakistan and yemen under president obama. 352, and in 63 in given since 2009. one strike under president bush. 289 strikes in pakistan verses 45 and the bush. last week, we only take such actions as a last resort to save lives. any actions will be legally grounded, the early anchored in intelligence. what does that sound like a rehearsed line? what the implications if he is confirmed? and i want to add one thing to this issue. a new website. a new website to me. coming out with this report that part of the problems that we are creating, the cia under david patraeus moving toward special operations instead of carrying out what has been traditionally its responsibility, intelligence gathering. where does all of this ploy? >> they always had two sides of the house. operations and intelligence analysis side. the strikes, the drone strikes at t
in terms of foreign policy from the bush doctrine, from the bush era policies, but in many ways has followed them and has been handed this entire security apparatus, this particular program began in 2004, about 400 strikes have happened so far. about 3,000 people have been killed, mostly pakistan, somali, yemen. but you have had this sort of deafening silence for the most part from progressives and liberals around this. you have had a few voices certainly on the hill and even on your network to raise questions about it, but by and large, the president has been given something of a pass. i think also the public has moved beyond this in some ways. there's a post-9/11 new normal in terms of how the public looks at the prosecution of this war on terror. they see it, it seems to me, as a vast war, an endless war in some ways that might be best prosecuted in this way rather than those large land wars we saw in afghanistan and iraq of this sort of pinpointed targeting of folks seem so far to have found some positive backing from americans. >> the cover of "time" magazine is rise of the dro
qualities and they will inspire a guide as as we carry out the united states foreign policy in these challenging times ahead. as the son of a diplomat and a member of the united states senate, deeply engaged in american diplomacy, you bring to this office a unique perspective and knowledge of both politics and diplomacy. and of the importance of a professional career in foreign service as the backbone of american diplomacy in the department of state. despite our necessary focus on complex and counter-terrorism, our values, a vision, and interest calls for an overarching diplomatic engagement, recognized worldwide as a leadership role worthy of the united states on behalf of the greater good of mankind. it is truly a great pleasure for us to welcome you here and we trust that under your storage chip, all parts of the state department team will gain in stature and recognition and enhance our professional capabilities to be fully prepared to meet the challenges in these difficult times demand. as we commit our support and loyalty to you, mr. secretary, i also take this opportun
the weapons. >> you delivered a major foreign policy today at the heritage foundation. well thought out speech on national security issues. why now? why did you decide to do it? because you knew that it was going to jump-start the speculation you want to establish foreign policy credentials for a possible run in 2016. >> you know, i just joined the foreign relations committee. i wanted to spell out what my mission is for the foreign policy. it's a unique position and one that needs to be expressed. we often have two polar extremes and really just one, for the most part, that we're everywhere you will a of the time. the other extreme is that it would be nowhere any of the time and that would be isolationism. there's a realistic approach somewhere in the middle and it would involve containment. i talked a lot about george kennan who may be the most famous diplomats, thought to be one of the chief architects of containment and i think there's some of ththat may apply to rad islam. it's an thet cal to freedom and has to be opposed at various parts around the world but i don't think the standard ap
him more on every single issue -- the deficit, health care, gun policy, foreign policy, does he have the upper hand? >> i think that the people are looking for results. they're not seeing it now. we have young people graduating from college who -- and the president talks a lot about education. they could find jobs -- i think this is about his tenth time that he's quote pivoting to the economy, and to jobs, but this is like a broken record. he says it, and then goes off to other things. the inaugural address was about climate change, immigration, gun control, gale rights. he ignored the major issue on the minds of the american people, which is jobs and the economy. >> you're not suggesting you think he's going to do that tomorrow? >> i'm hoping he does. i'll have an editorial calling for him to focus on jobs, things he can do to get back to work, but not more borrowing from china and spending. the government doesn't do a very good job of doing that effectively or efficiently. we need people back to work in this country and the president continues to take his eye off that ball and focu
this video in iran, they put it on youtube. john reid is the national security reporter for foreign policy. he says he analyzed the video, with he thinks it could be legitimate. do you think this is legitimate footage, because, obviously, this comes -- this is related to one of the most sophisticated piece of fighting technology america has. >> yeah, i always take it with a grain of salt. we have to make sure we're going to take a look at it. we'll have our experts analyze it from stem to stern. you know, iran has overinflated many things. they had missiles they said would go 1,200 kilometers. they went 800 kilometers. they had missile tests they said were successful that we know were not successful. so i'm a little bit skeptical that what they claim is true. could it be true? clearly. i think we have some more forensic work to do to absolutely verify, in fact, if this is footage from what they claim is the downed drone. >> and quickly, before we go, martin dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs was testifying today about what happened in benghazi. you've defended the use of drones and kill
the president's foreign policy priorities ought to be, looking at response to the turmoil of the arab spring, dealing with russia wouldn't seem to be anyone's natural first priority right now. jenna: one of the arguments, though, for doing this, according to "the new york times," is it would save a lot of money. if we don't have to keep these nuclear weapons and store them and watch them, that's going to save us a lot of cash, and we know the type of financial situation we're in right now. why isn't that a good argument? >> one, everyone would like to save cash, but really we've had $5 trillion added to our national debt over recent years, and maintenance of our nuclear strategic capability contributed nothing to that. and the proposed cuts, they say, would reduce about $120 billion in spending over 20 years, which is really a drop in the wasn't compared -- bucket compared to approaching $20 trillion in national debt. the second is the cut into intellectual capabilities well that should be stimulating economic development, research and development and applied technology. hitting these areas,
't correspond to the u.s. economy. they almost need a more specific policy aimed at foreign exchange. >> what do you mean? >> who actually has a -- normally it's run by government. >> well, you could say that. that is who has foreign exchange policies. maybe the snb. they would have more big exchange rate policy when it comes -- it's basically depends on the country. but it would to me suggest that he would like to see that. >> i don't think he would argue for a stronger euro, certainly. >> but it's not necessarily the overall value. it's what does the french economy tend to be -- >> exactly. he's implying a stronger euro. there's a lot of talking out of both sides of the mouth here. we'll see what else he has to say. there's going to be many more visionary comments about the future. >> politicians speaks out both sides at the same time. >> this is the parliamentary commission on the banking standards. we'll keep our eye owes that, as well. >> yeah. haven't seen too much out of that hearing yet, but you are looking at a live feed there. >> stim around. we're going to take a quick break. swiss ba
party. also putting morality at the center of foreign policy, something that reagan did that was a shift from the nixon and kissinger years. reagan was also all social conservative, very proud one. so he talked about abortion, the pro-life movement, in a way that had never happened. so that was a huge shift. reagan changed the republican party in profound ways. since reagan, there has not been that many changes. george w. bush in 2000 changed it in ways that are helpful. on immigration and the attempted, and on education and the whole notion that we republicans have concern for the common good and have asked france and community and civic organizations. host: now to the democratic line in connecticut. caller: i used to be a republican many moons ago. i voted for bush i over bill clinton as a matter of fact. now i don't know who the republican party is. i went from the republicans to an independent to democrats. three reasons. number one, i want religion out of the party. i have a religion. that's my business. i have a political party. that's the political parties business. member two, wo
think barack obama has been trying to gets us out of george bush's foreign policy mistakes, but i get your point. let's go to brad in dallas. >> caller: hey. so i work in healthcare in dallas, and i heard a story -- about five years ago, a suburban doctor was going to have to close his practice because his patients were aging. more of them were getting on medicare, and he was finding that he couldn't make a profit in his practice anymore. and so -- as usual what the republicans are doing is taking something that was happening anyway and drawing a line to something in the administration. >> stephanie: right. >> caller: this hand before obamacare was even voted on. so it is going on in some places -- >> stephanie: right. some of the insurance companies are obviously racing to raise their rates before obamacare kicks in, and then people are going oh it's obamacare, see what happens. >> caller: yeah, absolutely. >> stephanie: i'm sorry i thought you saw some other cute animal. >> no. no. i'm monitoring your social media. >> stephanie: oh, thank you. how is that going
foreign policy. i don't of military. i don't the military tactics. once congress and the executive branch decide what the policy or program is, we didn't see how well it is done. if there's problems we make recommendations. so going back to the taxation issue, it's a critical issue. right now the afghan government, what they collect is about $2 billion a year. just paying for the afghan national security forces, is over 4 billion. then you at all those other programs. so the problem is you can see there's a delta between what the afghans collect and the cost of running their government, the cost of fighting the taliban, and possibly maintaining order there. that difference is being supported by the united states taxpayer and by our allies. but it conditions. the collar and others have some concerns. about how well that is being spent but that value, a lot of discussion they came out of the tokyu of course about the internet community is not going to want what they're trying to put conditions on, rightly so, on the build of the afghan government to govern and to fight corruption. and we wi
will not make new policy, but, rather, advocate for existing positions. he's going to spend less time on foreign policy than on the economy but that's always the case in his state of the union speeches. on those fronts, expect him to address the drawdown in afghanistan, the u.s. relationship with china and also announce the start of a u.s./european union trade negotiation. big picture, wolf, it sounds like when it comes to republicans, he'll sort of have a club in one hand and olive branch in the other. >> it sounds like he's going to be emphasizing many of the themes he emphasized in the inaugural address. how will this one substantively be a whole lot different? >> his aides say to me that one was the philosophical statement of his beliefs. this one puts molcy meat on the bones. i'm told he will also talk about gay rights, women's rights and climate change. the big difference from the inaugural is the president views tomorrow night as his big opportunity to speak to the american people about the stakes in those across the board budget cuts looming at the end of the month and make his economic
and said the principles of american foreign policy are firmly -- the foundation is firmly rooted in righteousness and justice. we get to do great things here. this is a remarkable place. i am here today to rescue, on -- to ask you, on behalf of the country, i need your help. president obama need your help. to help us, to do everything we can to strengthen our nation and to carry those ideals out into the world. here, we can do the best of things you can do in government. that's what excites me. we get to try to make our nation safer. get to try to make peace in the world, a world where there is far too much conflict, far too much killing. there are alternatives. we get to try to cure disease and empower people who have no voice. we get to talk about empowering people through our ideals and through those ideals hopefully they can change their lives. that's what's happening in the world today. we get to live the ideals of our nation which and in doing , so i think we can make our country stronger and we can make the world more peaceful. so i look forward to joining with you as we m
to eat at luncheon table even though they had main speakers at the press club. they had a policy of having foreign dignitaries speak here at the press club. and so women assigned to cover the people were cooped up here in the hot, miserable balcony where they couldn't eat and here they could see men colleagues down on the floor having a nice lunch. also they couldn't hear up there. they didn't have enough room to take notes with it was miserable. that was indicative of the state of women in the days. there was a women at "the washington post," i knew her well, suzanne in the book she was taken off a prize civil rights assignment at the post because the people who were involved in this civil rights protest were going to have meeting here at the press club. and because weren't allowed in the press club, the "post" instead of complaining said we'll assign a man to it. that's the way things were. >> what was your beat at "the washington post"? >> i had a variety of beats at the "post." i covered the suburbs the city of alexander rei ya and i later covered which is now the superior co
, accounting down the road, but we'll save that for another day. but to look at policies that really do streamline the process, reduce wait times, make visas more readily available, and really just makes the united states a more simpler place, a more business friendly place, to keep foreign workers were educated here, here as well as people, again, a nation that was founded by immigrants, to promote from unemployment stand for in order to make it a more user-friendly special. we've seen a lot of the proposals that have come out. definitely immigration week. we have seen the president's proposal, the senate gang of eight proposal, which includes a high skilled piece of the and we hope it gets the attention that it deserves in the broader, on the broader discussion. at reasoned approach, and look at things that, including things that are also interested other legislation. you may also see the bill that was introduced i squared bill which was a lot of the positive interesting and things that would really help i think high-tech engine with and keeping talent here, one of which is waving the
campaigned on a promise that he would work to reform our immigration laws and legalize foreign workers in the united states. the president's policies were further shaped by the select commission on immigration and refugee policy that was created in 1978 under president carter. president reagan signed a bill into law on november 6, 1986. so six years after he first ran for president, he signed a law. this law was known as the immigration reform and control act. the process to finalize a bill was long and arduous. it took years; six years to be exact. in 1981, when i was a freshman senator, i joined the judiciary committee, and i was a me of the subcommittee on -- and i was a member of the subcommittee on immigration and refugee policy. back then subcommittees did real work. they actually sat down and wrote legislation. we had 100 hours of hearings and 300 witnesses before we marked up a bill in may 1982, a markup four years before the president had ever signed it. senator simpson chaired the subcommittee, and other members included senators thurmond, kennedy and deconcini. senator thurm
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)